I first started reading Charlotte Iserbyt's work shortly after I read John Taylor Gatto's The Underground History of American Education
. She and Beverly Eakman, who no longer writes for News with Views, gave me a real education on why our freedoms are being lost. I could see freedoms dwindling around me, but didn't think too much about it, and didn't know why it was happening, until I read these women. Iserbyt has just written an article
that explains in great detail about the Hegelian Dialectic and how the United States is moving closer to Communism. I'd love to dismiss her, and other freedom writers, as kooks and conspiracy theorists, but the problem is that too much of what they're saying is coming true. Right before our very eyes. And not many seem to care.
It shouldn't surprise me that mainstream media are keeping quiet about this whole National I.D. thing that's scheduled to take effect in 2008. It shouldn't surprise me at all. Just the other day, I found a Web site or message board or something--I don't want to remember it :) --that praised the government for wanting to screen ALL pregnant women and children for "mental illness." This tells me that people are wayyyy too trusting of the government. And that's exactly what our Founding Fathers didn't want. Oh, well, here comes the tagging of the sheep.
The last entry I posted, which has now been turned to private, talked about a supposed mom who was trying to save her children (twins) from adopters. That story turned out to be more complicated than I'd thought. Turns out, from what I have read in the fine print, that the supposed mom wasn't a mom at all, but was, rather, a rented uterus. The sperm and egg that made the twins had little if anything to do with the rented uterus. Duh! I'd think this was an important part of the story! But it was fine print in a couple of newspapers and not mentioned in others. A uterus renter who pretends to be a mom has lost my respect. However, she does bring up an important point--the supply and demand of babies and baby econ's sad results. Well, I have much more sympathy for the real mom in Florida who is about to lose her child to an adoption agency than for a woman who was paid to carry children for someone else. I just wish that mainstream media would be more honest about things, but then again, painting the rented uterus as a mom makes natural mothers look like raving lunatics and adopters seem like rightful owners. So, perhaps I smell an agenda here . . . . hmmm.
As I recall, Sandra Tsing Loh's older daughter is around my oldest son's age. In fact, I remember seeing her pregnant at the Los Angeles Times' Book Fair when I was pregnant with my oldest; she was a few months ahead of me in pregnancy. Now, her daughter may be going to the same fenced school that my son could be going to, if we didn't homeschool.
I remember John Taylor Gatto's words about magnet schools, gifted and talented programs, et al. He called them dog and pony shows. Well, I have to agree. And honestly, I thought those things were only a big deal in places like Raleigh. But evidently, Los Angelenos go crazy over this stuff as well, agonizing enough to drink too much when they're trying to find the very best dog and pony show for their progeny:http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/12/26/magnet.school.martinis.ap/index.html
And then, on the same CNN page, is this lovely story:http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/12/26/la.schools.ap/index.html
The illustrious mayor of Los Angeles is forcing his way to controlling the schools. My goodness, this whole mayoral scheme does seem to fit in quite nicely to the whole School-to-Work thing, whatever they're calling it these days. Soon, and I'm not exaggerating here, mayors all over the country will start taking over local control of school boards, encouraging more centralization and less parental control. If one can only imagine. With mayors controlling the schools, it will be much easier to implement the School-to-Work programs, which basically start slotting children into pre-determined career slots as young as elementary school. Children are already not receving basic educational skills--remember that few people these days can read books that were best sellers a century ago. With students being selected for careers, based on projected demand in local communities, at such young ages, the lack of reading skills will become even worse. Arguments based on emotion and not logic, as I've personally witnessed much of lately, will become even more normal and our society will continue to decline. Programs such as diversity training and mental health screening are already overtaking the schools, pushing out things like logic and reading.
But who cares? Our society will become even more full of victims than it already is. The pharmaceutical companies will profit. That's really all that matters, isn't it?
Meanwhile, parents all over the country are dancing and singing to whatever beat the government schools suggest, just as the public schools were set up to make them do.
If it weren't so sad, it would almost be humorous as to how our supposedly "fair and balanced" media give us such one-sided views of things. For instance, this article in today's News and Observer
portrays the adopters as nothing but heroes. Where's the natural mother of the child? Well, it doesn't really matter, does it? After all, the baby was left at a fire station; under the guise of saving infants from being dumped in a trash can, so-called "Safe Haven" legislation makes those sweet and wonderful firemen, who are so brave, take the place of social workers who are evidently too cowardly to witness the separation of a mother and her newborn. The firemen are not supposed to ask questions, not supposed to help the mom or tell her how important breastfeeding is, not supposed to "judge." The fire fighters are supposed to simply take the infant and call the social worker, seemingly alleviating the social worker's responsibility in separating mother and child. The fire fighter is merely serving his or her community by taking the child, right? And the social worker merely has to pick up the supposedly abandoned child. What a nice racket to find children for desperate adopters, as these people in the story seemed to be. While I am not understating the devastation that the adopters must have been through, having been through eight miscarriages and the tragedy of losing twins further along in a pregnancy, the solution for such a tragic situation, if indeed there is one, shouldn't be in taking someone else's child.
The adopters were so desperate for a child that they would have taken a "polka-dot" one. It is sad indeed that such desperation exists and sad that such infertility exists. I do not mean to downplay the tragedy of the adopters' inability to produce a live child--that is tragic in and of itself. But the tragedy is not cured or helped by taking someone else's baby, even if it was one that was supposedly abandoned and supposedly saved from the trash dump. I'm dubious that the mom had either of those things in mind, but we'll probably never know. This little guy will never have the ability to do what I was able to do--find his natural parents. Such legal abandonment at fire stations, as is all the rage in adoption circles these days, requires no identifying information from mother or father, encouraging the most tragic of all adoptees--the foundling. Foundlings, in most cases, are doomed to be lost from their natural families forever.
What disappoints me more than anything is the supposedly Christian response, for the adopters and not for the mother herself: The church of the adopters raised $6,000 so that this adoptee's birth certificate could be falsified and the child can be "completely theirs," as if we adoptees are products to be bought and sold. Imagine how far the child's natural mother could have gone on $6,000. Where was a church in helping the mother to keep her child? Churches seem often to support adopters, but I don't often read stories of support for mothers who are thinking about giving their child away and decide, instead, to keep it. Shouldn't the churches be supporting natural families? Such issues are rarely if ever brought up in mainstream media adoption propaganda; the natural parents are either vilified or forgotten. I have been reading more and more, however, about adopters being helped financially. What makes the adopters superior to the natural mother, especially if the adopters don't have the money needed to adopt a child?
As an antidote to this one-sided story, I will place this link that encourages moms to keep their babies. What a shame that this little boy's real mom failed to see the site, or to heed its advice. What a shame that the firemen who took this child from his mother's arms was probably not allowed to suggest this site or one like it:
Not much has changed, unfortunately. Remember how the objective in that particular garden was to, well, you know, just do what God said, as I recall it. Now granted, that's not an easy task these days, but the big thing there was not eating of a certain tree. Eve was tempted by a serpent--some of you might remember his cameo--who told her something like, "You shall not surely die," completely disputing the word of God. Well, guess who won that battle. Not Adam, not Eve, certainly not their descendants. Meanwhile, many women seem not to have changed much in the last few thousand years, listening to deceit and believing it to be true. In this case, it's the deceit of the state, with the fascist help of that wonderful freedom-limiting organization, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). From what I understand, what started out as a private effort to curb drinking and driving, the result of one mom's crusade to keep from happening to other children what happened to her daughter, who was killed by a drunk driver.
This organization has mushroomed, and I'm not even sure that the original founder is still with it, into a police state patsy that, last I heard other than the following story, is trying to install breathalyzers in every automobile. Yes, every one. The state seems to have taken the form of a serpent here and, unfortunately, many moms are turning into modern-day Eves, tempting us all to take a bite of the fruit. And because the government owns the roads--and we see how good they are at management when we learn that a gate left open by the Bureau of Land Management led to James Kim's tragic death--it becomes easy to see how an organization that starts out with good intentions can be led down the primrose path toward totalitarianism. Such has happened with MADD, leading me to begin to respect the sign that I saw during college, when all this MADD business was blossoming, that said DAMM, or Drunks Against Mad Mothers.
What's so very sad, however, is that moms go along with this police state, encouraging it, praising it, and truly wanting more lordship by the government, never thinking that this fascist thinking may well lead our children to live in a country that's much less free than the one we live in today, if that can be imagined.http://my.earthlink.net/article/nat?guid=20061221/458a14d0_3ca6_15526200612211815027222
Take a look at how China is changing the rules on exporting its infants:http://my.earthlink.net/article/int?guid=20061219/458771d0_3ca6_1552620061219-374092061
I suppose that this change rules out the single adopters who find that "China dolls" are just so very cute. For those who think that I shouldn't use that word to describe the Chinese girls that we import for American adopters, an adopter of a Chinese girl herself used that word on a message board I read a couple of years ago. I use it only to draw attention to how some adopters think of their Chinese adoptees.
Notice these quotes from the article:The China Center for Adoption Affairs has said it is trying to increase the number of children available by creating a new charity to improve conditions in orphanages and "keep infants and young children alive and well enough to be adopted," Harrah's said.
andThe agency said China has pledged to try to make more children available to those who qualify.
and my personal favorite:The move comes amid a surge in foreign applications . . .
Yet, when I talk about the supply of children versus the demand from potential adopters, especially the supply of those domestic white infants that 40 couples now vie for each one of, adopters seem to skip that part when they write me nasty letters. Of course, most people will read this article and think either that the Chinese are discriminating against the obese, or against gays and lesbians, or against people who have supposed mental illnesses, or whatever. But the real message here lies in the fact that the Chinese government has no incentive whatsoever to stop exporting infants, i.e., to stop their inane policy of limiting reproduction. In fact, the Chinese government now has incentive mainly to tighten the rules, assuring the availability of more children to meet the demand. If there is a silver lining to this story, I suppose it is the fact that children already in orphanages will receive better treatment so that they may be better marketed (and thus receive a higher price in the adoption market?). But then again, didn't we stop this kind of marketing of human beings, oh, well over one hundred years ago?
So far this week, I've seen about three instances in which Rosie O'Donnell has expressed her opinion on The View and it's been cast about as though it's the gospel. The most ridiculous, of course, was her view of Kelly Ripa as "homophobic" because Ripa wanted Clay Aiken to get his germ-filled hand off her mouth. Well, I feel much better about being called "antigay" for stating some facts and opinions that actually supported homosexuals, in a "hey-Christians-why-are-you-smearing-the-homosexuals-when-you-do-the-same-thing" kinda way. Oops! My supposed sin was that I forgot to call the homosexuals "wonderful" and "lovely." Or so I guess. I still can't figure out how what I said was "virulently antigay." Neither could Ripa. I think that Duke Selwyn has this thing figured out pretty well:http://www.newswithviews.com/Duke/selwyn46.htm
Now, Rosie has dubbed herself the undisputable queen of what people should think and, sure enough, The View has a lot of viewers, mostly women, who believe they are receiving a real contrast in views on that show. Danny DeVito should indeed be proud that she deemed his drunkenness "okay." All that matters, really, is Rosie's opinion:http://my.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20061130/456fb6d0_3ca6_1552620061201-347283630
. . . that it's okay to disagree?
I recently received the e-mail that's in italics at the end of this entry and, sure enough, it seems as though this woman lives to disagree with me. Well, whatever. At least she does it nicely, or so it seems. Anyway, I did respond to her socialist victim-oriented comments. My guess is that she's a nice woman who's been led astray, by mainstream media, government, and other Fabian Socialist outlets. Honestly, I think I could count the number of strong freedom-oriented women in the world on my right hand, and I don't have extra fingers! Most women, unfortunately, are way too willing to be victims, to allow the government to do their thinking and financial planning for them, and to take whatever mainstream media feed them and make it so. The letter from this woman merely proves my point. It is very unfortunate, but we have become a world of victims; unfortunately, this woman, along with many others, seems to be more than willing to accept the victimhood and supposed cures of the current mental health industry.
From Thinking Mama:
Thanks for your comments.
Regarding the LLLI thing, they
. I make no effort to hide what I've written nor am I ashamed of my views on natural family preservation or my huge skepticism of the mental health industry, which is what Brooke seems to be a paid advocate for. I had to look at the essay again to see what you meant about making fun of someone with PPD. I don't see it.
During the whole time of this LLLI Founders' Dinner controversy, I only talked with one person. (I have since talked with a couple of other people with LLLI, but not about the controversy itself; they all seem nice.) Her name is Judy Torgus and you are more than welcome to talk to her yourself. She seems like a very nice person. She told me that it was the controversy itself, the result of the stalkers themselves, that scared away LLLI. Judy had read some things I'd written and I planned on talking, not about post-partum depression, but about breastfeeding and my experiences with it. Should they have also not allowed me to perform because I am Southern Baptist? Because I have a degree in math? Because I used to date women? What gives? These stalkers, by the way, tried to kick me off of Lew Rockwell's Web site and he basically told them to go away. Fortunately, Lew Rockwell, much to his credit, will not be bullied.
As to why LLLI, who has not been immune from controversy themselves, bothered to allow this particular controversy to startle them so, my guess is that the stalkers made a lot of noise and threatened them in a similar way to how they threatened me. As I mentioned in my essay, they're scary folks.
I would think that someone who spoke up against the victimization of women via the mental health industry is the kind of woman that would be drawn to breastfeeding and all the stuff that goes with it. These days, the breastfeeding woman tends to be a strongly opinionated woman. It's too bad that LLLI didn't have the guts that Lew Rockwell has. When I have money to donate, I know who'll be getting it: A site that encourages free speech, such as Lew Rockwell.
The larger question, however, is why someone with strong opinions who is quite adamant about expressing them is such a threat to some people. When I read or hear about people with whom I vehemently disagree, I tend to either write about it or simply forget about it. I don't stalk and slander, as these people seem to enjoy.
Regarding fertility et al.: Why does someone want to pounce on someone like a cheetah, or whatever it was that person said? I don't believe I've ever said that I wanted to pounce on someone like a cheetah, no matter how inane or rude that person's comment it. Go to www.in-gender.com and you'll find lots of women who have children all of the same sex and want a child of the opposite sex. Is their desire to be trivialized simply because they already have a child? Methinks that people have become far, far too sensitive in these politically correct days. I grew up with a family who had three daughters, the last of which was named a female version of her father's name. When she was born, her mother called the dad and said, "Go ahead and eat your supper; it's another girl." This was a story that all of us heard and it wasn't anything that "victimized" the third daughter, or any of the other daughters. They're all grown and relatively happy these days, as far as I can tell.
Your comments have inspired me to talk even more about post-partum depression. Our illustrious King Jorge has managed to institute a program, little reported in mainstream media, that aims for the government to screen every woman and child for PPD. In the land of the supposed free, such a program is bizarre and uncalled for. Brooke, as with many celebrities these days, is touting how lovely it is to be a victim. It's that kind of thing that ties in so nicely with the pharmaceutical companies and their supposed cures. These pill cures can preclude women from breastfeeding. Hmmm. Ponder that for a moment. I would think that it would very much be in the interest of breastfeeding moms to be very much against this kind of thing. My commentary on the mental health industry, which I've also written about for Lew Rockwell, has made a lot of women think twice about depression and its so-called cures. For that, I am thankful. Again, I'm not saying that post-partum depression doesn't exist, but that it doesn't need to be touted and encouraged, especially by celebrity spokespeople.
You've just read Thinking Mama's response to this:I was so sorry to hear that other people resorted to insults to express their disagreements with your views. I always find it a real shame when people behave like that.
Couple of things to say, though. Firstly - no, I don't think it's fertility that the critics dislike. I think it's certain attitudes. The woman that Julie criticised, in the post you quoted – Julie wasn't criticising her for being fertile. She was criticising her for talking, publically, about the birth of a healthy boy as something that she was 'devastated' about. Doesn't it seem to you that that really is a rather tactless, thoughtless way to put it? I'm not saying it's wrong to be upset because you had a boy rather than a girl. But, when so many women would give anything to have had the blessing of that birth, is it really appropriate to sound so ungrateful about it so publically? (And in front of the child, too – now, that's just wrong!)
The other, and more important, issue is what you've said about post-natal depression in the past (http://www.newswithviews.com/Vaughan/tricia1.htm). This didn't get mentioned in the article you wrote here, and I know it wasn't the biggest issue that people were complaining about. But it was certainly one of the issues people were raising. Is it possible that this is what actually bothered LLL? Because, if so, I have to say that I agree with them completely. Your whole attitude towards PND was really dismissive and sneering, and the way you made fun of a woman for having it was downright unpleasant and inappropriate.
I've written more about this at http://goodenoughmummy.typepad.com/good_enough_mum/2006/11/tricia_smith_va.html, and I've tried to be civil and fair in doing so; I'd welcome any comments you want to make. But I think that it's precisely because LLL are supposed to support mothers that it would have been completely inappropriate for them to invite a speaker who talks about post-partum depression in the way you do.
Gosh, there's this whole police shooting thing:http://my.earthlink.net/article/nat?guid=20061125/4567cdd0_3ca6_15526200611251752698596
It happened in Atlanta recently, too! And to a 92-year-old woman in her own home. Her supposed crime? Oops! They got the wrong house! Think it couldn't happen to you? Think again.
Meanwhile, people are being diverted by American Idol, et al. and other so-called reality shows. Therefore, a major headline in the Raleigh News and Observer makes people feel a lot like acquiescing to a police state. After all, it's for our own good, right? I'm especially intrigued by Richard Burr, a supposed Republican, but seeming Fascist, who wholly supports the pharmaceutical industry. Gee, I wonder why he is desperately seeking a flu vaccine?
Here's why I'm glad I'm not living in North Carolina. The N&O, which used to be somewhat reputable, has now cowered to the same scare tactics as the National Enquirer:http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/514902.html
And just what will happen if you get too close to a bird, or a human that's been infected by a bird? Look, I'm telling you that, although this is no guarantee, at the Thinking Mama household, we tend to wash our hands often. And we tend not to have contacts with birds. I could go on, but here's an even better critique of this supposed flu emergency. I'm glad that we live in California, where there was only a small article on this National-Enquirer-type hype, and it wasn't the headlines--hooray!
If you want another side of this whole influenza scare, please read Sherri Tenpenny. She is absolutely fabulous!http://www.newswithviews.com/Tenpenny/sherri12.htm